next »

[qrypt]

Michael Behe (the ID proponent at Lehigh) has taken such a beating that I'm actually struggling a bit not to feel sorry for him.  Richard Dawkin's review of his new book in the NYT today http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/books/review/Dawkins-t.html would seem to be a fitting final nail in the coffin: it is one of the most devastating book reviews I've ever read.  I suppose the only consolation he can take is that he probably doesn't actually have to go to his office tomorrow and face his colleagues - perhaps they'll have forgotten about it by the time classes start again.

If anyone here sees a public response of some sort from Behe, I'd be grateful to hear about it. 

[oldfullprof]

Behe is weak because of his reliance on specific, small instances of irreducable complexity, the details of which can usually be explained by evolutionary mechanisms.  But I think Dawkins's mechanistic position has problems, expecially in the sense of the enormous meta-coordination that seems to take place in nature.  There are at least systems of coordination out there of which we know nothing.

Dawkins's need to attack religion or even a sense of hidden systems strikes me as hysterical in essence. 

[big_giant_head]

I don't know...did you read the review in the link?

Dawkins seems pretty capable of seeing natural selection as a very complex system.  And Behe has apparently stopped with the "irreducible complexity" red herring. 

I mean, Dawkins can seem smug, but I don't really get that from his review of Behe's new book.

[oldfullprof]

I don't know...did you read the review in the link?

Dawkins seems pretty capable of seeing natural selection as a very complex system.  And Behe has apparently stopped with the "irreducible complexity" red herring. 

I mean, Dawkins can seem smug, but I don't really get that from his review of Behe's new book.

Mainly going off Dawkins' last book and a few articles by Behe from a couple of years ago.  I just read the review in ink a couple of minutes ago.  His arguments seems tautalogical some of the time still.  It's true because it's true. 

I'm sort of puzzled by the ability of natural systems to use mere natural selection to do so many things at once-- things that work so well in concert.  (Yes, I know the throw-away line that they don't, but that's a matter of argument.)  I'm not particularly religious, but have been struck by some of evolutionary theory's issues--

1.  Multiply-irradiated fruit flies never becoming another species
2.  Similar animal niches in marsupial Australia as in other placental parts of the world.  Why not another system? 

[big_giant_head]

Yeah, I don't know--I'm just an English professor.  ;-)

[oldfullprof]

But I would have liked to see more from Dawkins on rates of mutation because inclusive fitness seems to depend on so many things simultaneously.  This is a big issue for me.  In catastrophic times (after the Dinosaur comet) mutation would have had to do much, much more-- I guess this is the punctuated equlibrium theory.  So rather than call on authority, he could have given us a sense of how mutation could do the job.

[oldfullprof]

Yeah, I don't know--I'm just an English professor.  ;-)

Right, I'm a sociologist.  I had probability, but it didn't stick.  :) 

[husqvarna]

Although the review is certainly harsh, I think that Dawkins has become just as much a pundit in the public eye as Behe.  This is not to say that either of them has nothing to offer scientifically, but because of books that both have written, I think you either tend to agree with them or you don't these days.  I don't think Dawkins' review will do any considerable damage to Behe's image, then.  Something like this is expected of him, just like Behe's latest book is simply expected.  And I'm sure that's why the NYT had him write the review as opposed to anyone else.

One thing that I'd like some clarification on from a biologist- is Dawkins' dog breed example really any good?  I mean, so long as we're still crossing dogs, getting mutts, etc., does it have anything at all to do with speciation?  If not, then what was the value of his point?  It sounds dangerously close to a lot of things you could try to say about differences among human ethnicities that have distinguished themselves based on long-term mating habits.  Is the dog example really any different from that?

[hphphp]

" is Dawkins' dog breed example really any good? "

(a) I am not a biologist. (b) I haven't read Behe's book (and I'm not going to waste anytime on it). With that in mind here is what I understood from Dawkins' example. He is trying to answer a claim by Behe that mutation rates are too low to allow for the variation we see in nature. If that is indeed Behe's claim than I think the example is good - artificial selection just like natural one has random mutation as it's 'raw material' to work with and can result is huge variation in a very short time frame.

[husqvarna]

" is Dawkins' dog breed example really any good? "

(a) I am not a biologist. (b) I haven't read Behe's book (and I'm not going to waste anytime on it). With that in mind here is what I understood from Dawkins' example. He is trying to answer a claim by Behe that mutation rates are too low to allow for the variation we see in nature. If that is indeed Behe's claim than I think the example is good - artificial selection just like natural one has random mutation as it's 'raw material' to work with and can result is huge variation in a very short time frame.

I haven't read Behe's book either, nor am I a biologist, but I can't imagine that this answers Behe's point.  Behe's concern isn't with the small amount of variation that you find in different breeds of the same species... his problem is with the entirety of Earth's biodiversity, and how certain evolutionary models are (un)able to explain it, right?  For Dawkins to make the point with this example and go on to assume that everyone is with him on the amplification to wider evolutionary claims simply side-steps the debate by assuming his own answer.  I doubt Behe has an issue with "variation", or even the rather subjective description of variation that is "huge".  Is it really huge?  By what standards?  Dawkins tries to get Behe on the issue of "mutations", but then goes on to talk about the physical appearances of various dog breeds.  Again, a biologist will be of some help, but does this really have anything to do with genetic mutations on any level that would be considered biologically "huge"?  If not, then I still fail to see Dawkins' point.

[mythbuster]

This week's issue of nature also has a review of the Behe book, by someone less political than Dawkins.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7148/full/4471055a.html

However, no less damning.

[stapler]

does this really have anything to do with genetic mutations on any level that would be considered biologically "huge"?  If not, then I still fail to see Dawkins' point.

The point Dawkins is making is that mutation rates are much higher than the likes of Behe appreciate.  You're asking for something "biologically huge", as though the diversity within dogs is tiny.  In a blink of geological time, human selection has caused dogs to assume the greatest diversity of body size of any terrestrial vertebrate, and their range of physical qualities is similarly enormous.

As an aside, my guess is that you're setting the bar at the highest possible level (observed speciation).  There's nothing wrong with setting the bar this high (it's a fairly clear-cut and objective benchmark), except that more time is probably needed.  There are interesting cases in which speciation may have taken place in certain organisms (see links below), but if you're looking for clear-cut speciation in mammals like dogs, we need more time. 

One does not expect an enormous mountain range to form in a human lifetime (it usually takes 3-30 million years), and similarly one does not usually expect new species to develop in a small number of generations.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

[qrypt]

So, two reviews that don't just "disagree" with Behe's argument but claim that he has made a fundamental error that is fatal to his argument. 

I think I understand the claim regarding the error, though I admit I'm not really qualified to judge it.  However, for what follows let's assume that the claim regarding the error is correct.

Science (or inquiry more generally) depends on the free flow of "information", the airing of views that work out eventually to be wrong.  Is that principle sufficient to justify publication of Behe's book? 

My sense is that it's not - that the book should not have been published.  (It's significant that it appears in a commercial press, not a university press: the Free Press will probably make a bundle from this one, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that one or two university presses had the opportunity to get that revenue stream but declined it.)  IDiots will latch on to it, and millions of people, including children, will be misled, in part because of the existence of this book. 

Is the alternative view - that this book has a role to play in the evolution (!) of knowledge - more compelling? 

[anthroid]

I'm not sure we as Americans can justify not allowing the publication of a book simply because it's wrong.  Isn't the whole point of the First Amendment to allow for all kinds of speech, including that which is patently offensive or just plain old dumb?  Behe has as much right to have his views aired as does Ann Coulter or Michael Moore.  Just because Behe is completely off base, and a pariah to boot, does not mean he ought to be censored.

Or am I misinterpreting grupt's post?

[husqvarna]

re: stapler's comment... I'm not really interested in the argument itself, I'm not trying to set a benchmark.  As we are commenting on Dawkins' review, however, I found this particular point not very convincing in itself.  This says nothing about the wider conversation of ID v. non-theistic evolution.  Whether or not there is an enormous range of types in dog breeds, I'm not the one trying to set the bar high... I think Dawkins sets it high by making a very strong argument and then doesn't reach it in the example he gives.  That's all.  Not that there aren't examples out there necessarily, I just don't find this one, or the review as a whole, very enlightening.

re: grupt's comment.  I do struggle with the genre of all this.  I'm not very familiar with ID (or any other corner of the discussion, for that matter), but as I understand it ID's contribution is more to the philosophy of science than empirical scientific work itself.  This is why I find Dawkins' suggestion that Behe publish in the peer-reviewed literature not entirely to the point... whatever empirical work that Behe does, his point is to consider how we view the philosophical framework of evolution, is it not?  Dawkins does the same thing when he insists upon a non-theistic basis in science and elsewhere.  Dawkins also follows the same publication patterns with The God Delusion and The Blind Watchmaker, doesn't he?  And this is fine- Dawkins is: "Professor of the Public Understanding of Science" at Oxford.  I don't think a popular press or an argument based upon philosophical principles needs to be excluded from a scientific discussion... in fact it's dangerous to stop listening to these viewpoints, because the evidence can always be twisted to fit the model and it's important to keep the underlying assumptions on the table, in plain view, and in dialogue.